SPEECH 


#37 


OP 


MR.  HILLIARD,  OF   ALABAMA, 


ON 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR, 


DELIVERED    IN 


THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


JANUARY  5,  1847. 


WASHINGTON. 

J.    &    G.   S.   GIDEON,   PRINTERS. 

1847. 


SPEECH 


OP 


ME,  HILLIAED,  OF    ALABAMA, 

A  /, 


ON 


THE    MEXICAN    WAR, 


DELIVERED    IN 

I 

THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
JANUARY  5,  1847. 


WASHINGTON. 

J.    &    G.    S.    GIDEON,    PRINTERS. 

1847. 


SPEECH 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  having  under 
consideration  the  bill  to  raise,  for  a  limited  time,  an  additional  military  force,  and  for  other  pur 
poses — 

MR.  HILLIARD  rose  and  said  : 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN  :  The  debate  which  arose  upon  referring  the  President's 
message  to  the  several  committees  took  so  wide  a  range,  that  I  forbore  to 
take  any  part  in  it,  but  prefened  rather  to  wait  until  some  practical  question 
should  come  up  which  would  afford  better  ground  for  what  I  desire  to  say. 
Such  a  question  is  now  before  us,  and  it  involves  the  same  topics.  I  do 
not  wish  to  be  understood  as  complaining  of  the  spirited  and  interesting  de 
bate  which  has  already  taken  place  ;  I  only  regret  the  asperities  which,  in 
too  many  instances,  have  marked  it  on  both  sides.  In  all  constitutional 
governments,  where  the  representative  principle  is  recognised,  great  latitude 
of  debate  must  be  allowed.  The  spirit  of  liberty  will  make  itself  heard 
wherever  it  exists.  It  spoke  out  in  the  stormy  debates  of  the  ancient  repub 
lics,  and  it  has  often  shaken  the  throne  and  arrested  kingly  power  in  Eng 
land.  In  the  language  of  Burke,  "  Something  must  be  pardoned  to  the 
spirit  of  liberty."  The  course  of  executive  power  must  be  boldly  surveyed; 
it  ought  to  be.  Even  in  royal  governments,  where  it  is  usual  for  the  mon 
arch  in  person  to  address  the  legislative  bodies,  it  is  customary,  in  discussing 
the  reply  to  the  speech  from  the  throne,  for  the  widest  latitude  of  debate  to 
be  indulged  in,  and  the  utmost  freedom  of  remark  is  permitted  without 
complaint.  In  England,  especially,  the  reply  of  Parliament  to  the  royal 
speech  usually  manifests  the  highest  degree  of  jealousy  on  the  part  of  that 
body  for  the  rights  of  Englishmen.  And  shall  we,  who  profess  to  have 
yet  larger  views  of  public  liberty,  attempt  to  restrain  the  utmost  latitude  of 
remark  on  the  course  of  those  entrusted  with  power?  Certainly  not.  Pre 
vious  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  time,  the  American  Presidents  came  to  Congress 
at  the  opening  of  the  session,  and  addressed  both  Houses  in  person.  It  was 
usual,  too,  for  each  House  to  reply  to  the  speech  of  the  President;  and  this 
afforded  the  opportunity  of  discussing  with  freedom  the  Executive  measures. 
At  the  opening  of  the  session  of  Congress,  in  1801,  Mr.  Jefferson  adopted, 
as  more  convenient,  the  practice  of  sending  a  message  to  the  two  Houses  ; 
and  although  this  form  of  Executive  communication  made  a  reply  unneces 
sary,  yet,  we  are  informed  by  the  parliamentary  history  of  the  period,  that 
a  very  animated  debate  took  place  on  the  topics  it  contained.  I  trust  the 
day  will  never  come,  when,  in  this  Government,  such  freedom  will  be  de 
nied.  A  French  king  once  said,  "  1  am  the  State,"  but  a  President  of  the 
United  States  can  use  no  such  language.  He  occupies,  it  is  true,  an  ele 
vated  and  very  influential  position  in  the  Government,  but  the  severest  ex- 


animation  of  his  course  in  the  exercise  of  his  functions,  in  whatever  direc 
tion  they  may  be  put  forth,  is  consistent  with  the  purest  patriotism. 

While,  then,  sir,  I  claim  for  myself,  and  for  other  gentlemen  of  this 
House,  the  privilege  of  discussing  Executive  communications  with  the 
greatest  freedom,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  at  large  upon  an  examina 
tion  of  the  message  which  the  President  has  lately  sent  to  Congress.  There 
are,  however,  some  subjects  which  it  brings  before  us,  of  such  magnitude, 
and  which  must  so  largely  affect  the  character  and  happiness  of  the  coun 
try,  that  I  cannot  consent  to  let  them  pass  without  giving  my  views  of  them. 
We  have  reached  an  important  point  in  our  history.  We  are  at  war.  For 
once  I  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  crisis.  It  is  not  that  there  is  any  thing 
portentous  in  the  elements  which  surround  us — the  nation  with  which  we 
are  at  war  is  a  feeble  one,  and  we  have  nothing  to  fear  from  her  arms.  But 
a  question,  which  was  started  at  the  close  of  the  last  session,  and  which  has 
already  been  revived  since  the  commencement  of  the  present  one,  is  suffici 
ently  ominous.*  Like  a  sea-bird  driven  far  in-land,it  may  be  a  messenger 
which  gives  notice  of  the  coming  tempest.  This  question  grows  out  of  the 
great  topic  presented  in  the  message,  the  war;  and  it  is  here  in  this  Hall, 
where  we  have  heard  some  extraordinary  declarations  made  in  connexion 
with  it,  that  I  desire  to  speak  of  it.  I  do  not  wish  to  precipitate  this  great 
question  ;  it  ought  not  to  have  been  brought  here;  but  as  it  is  here,  it  must 
be  met.  This  Hall  should  not  be  converted  into  an  arena  for  hot  contro 
versy,  by  bringing  for  discussion  here  a  subject  which  does  not  fairly  come 
within  the  range  of  our  deliberations,  and  which  must  shake,  not  only  this 
Capitol,  but  this  Republic. 

But  first,  as  to  the  war.  This  is  the  great  theme  of  the  message — the 
prominent  colossal  figure  in  the  foreground  of  the  picture,  about  which  the 
other  objects  are  grouped  in  humbler  and  smaller  proportions.  I  suppose 
it  must  be  so  ;  our  foreign  relations,  with  the  single  unhappy  exception  re 
ferred  to,  are  all  of  the  most  amicable  kind;  our  internal  tranquility  is  per 
fect  ;  the  vast  resources  of  our  country  are  in  a  course  of  prosperous  de 
velopment.  There  is  but  the  one  check  to  our  prosperity  ;  but  for  this, 
the  President  informs  us,  the  public  debt  would  have  been  discharged,  and 
we  might  now  have  been  engaged  in  plans  for  increasing  the  happiness  of 
our  people,  and  advancing  in  our  high  career  of  civilization.  But,  though 
it  must  be  admitted  that  war  is  a  calamity,  yet  I  cannot  bring  myself  ta 
agree  with  those  who  think  it  best  to  arrest  all  our  movements  against  Mex 
ico.  I  concur  in  opinion  with  a  distinguished  Senator  from  Delaware,  (Mr, 
J.  M.  CLAYTON,)  who,  some  days  since,  took  occasion  to  say,  that  he  was- 
decidedly  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  Government  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
war.  My  honorable  friend  from  Philadelphia  (Mr.  J.  R.  INGERSOLL)  has 
avowed  the  same  determination.  I  do  not  see  that  any  other  course  is  left 
us.  The  question  is  not  now,  whether  we  shall  plunge  into  a  war  or  not; 
the  question  is,  a  war  having  been  commenced,  shall  we  sustain  it,  or  shall 
we  let  it  go  down?  Shall  we  infuse  new  vigor  into  the  war,  by  voting  the 
men  and  the  money  asked  for,  or  shall  we  withdraw  all  support  from  the 
war,  and  arrest  it  before  it  has  accomplished  its  objects  ? 

If  the  question  were  now  presented  to  me,  between  peace  and  war;  I 


*  The  honorable  Mr.  Wilmot's  resolution  as  to  slavery ;  and  the  honorable  Mr.  Preston 
King's  bill  and  speech  on  the  same  subject. 


should  undoubtedly  be  in  favor  of  peace.  But  no  such  election  is  presented 
to  us.  The* spectacle  before  us  is  a  war  in  progress;  our  own  country  on 
one  side,  a  foreign  country  on  the  other;  our  own  country,  at  every  step 
which  our  armies  take,  holding  forth  an  offer  of  peace,  an  offer  which  the 
enemy  as  yet  have  shown  no  disposition  to  entertain.  This  is  enough  for 
me.  I  range  myself  on  that  side  on  which  I  see  the  standard  of  my  coun 
try.  Over  the  troops  now  in  Mexico  floats  the  same  standard  which  was 
borne  through  the  storms  of  the  Revolution;  it  was  often  dimmed  with  the 
smoke  of  battle,  hostile  bayonets  bristled  about  it,  and  sometimes  seemed  to 
surround  it  and  overbear  it, but  it  emerged  from4hat  long  and  fierce  conflict 
covered  with  the  light  of  victory.  Who  is  willing  to  see  that  banner  giv 
ing  back  before  the  enemy,  or  trailing  in  the  dust?  Who  does  not  desire 
that  it  may  be  borne  in  triumph  on  whatever  breeze  it  may  be  flung?  I 
am  sure  that  every  gentleman  here  exults  in  its  triumphs. 

The  fleets  which  now  blockade  the  ports  and  cruise  along  the  coasts  of 
Mexico  bear  the  same  glorious  flag  that  streamed  from  the  mast-head  of  the 
CONSTITUTION,  when  she  carrried  the  thunder  of  our  arms  to  distant  seas, 
and  spread  dismay  among  the  enemies  of  our  rising  commerce; or, guarding 
the  line  of  our  own  coast  from  the  ravages  of  a  formidable  foe,  rushed  down 
triumphantly  upon  her  prey.  So  long  as  that  flag  is  flying,  no  matter  under 
what  sky,  American  hearts  will  mourn  over  its  reverses,  and  rejoice  in  its 
triumphs. 

The  question  before  Congress  is,"  Shall  we  prosecute  this  war?"  On 
that  question  I  cannot  hesitate  for  a  moment.  The  Constitution  has  con 
ferred  on  Congress  the  prerogative  of  declaring  war.  We  have  recognis 
ed  the  war,  and  by  that  vote  we  have  made  the  Chief  Magistrate  responsi 
ble  for  the  mode  of  conducting  it.  So  long  as  the  President  is  thus  respon 
sible,  by  the  theory  of  our  Government,  he  is  charged  with  the  conduct  of 
the  war.  He  is  invested  with  all  the  authority  which  belongs  to  that  im 
portant  station.  It  is  for  us  to  say  how  far  we  will  go  in  voting  supplies; 
and  it  must  be  a  great  crisis,  one  such  as  I  have  never  yet  seen,  and  which 
has  never  occurred  in  our  history,  which  would  warrant  me  in  refusing  to  vote 
them.  Other  gentlemen  must  of  course  decide  for  themselves;  these  are 
my  convictions.  I  shall,  therefore,  while  I  should  be  happy  to  see  this  war 
brought  to  a  speedy  and  honorable  termination,  continue  to  sustain  the  Gov 
ernment  in  its  prosecution,  till  such  terms  of  peace  as  we  ought  to  accept 
can  be  secured.  I  trust,  too,  that  this  will  be  the  sentiment  of  the  whole 
country.  So  far,  the  progress  of  the  war  has  been  marked  by  a  self-sacri 
ficing  and  patriotic  spirit,  which  illustrates  our  free  institutions,  and  by  vic 
tories  as  remarkable  and  brilliant  as  any  which  history  records.  Whatever 
regrets  may  be  felt  at  the  interruption  of  the  long  career  of  peace  which  our 
country  has  enjoyed,  we  have  at  least  gratifying  proof  that  it  has  left  no  en 
ervating  influence  on  the  national  character. 

But  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  objects  of  the  war.  Every  war  has  its 
object.  In  our  two  contests  with  Great  Britain  we  had  great  objects  before 
us.  The  war  of  the  Revolution  was  undertaken  in  defence  of  a  great  prin 
ciple.  The  spirit  of  liberty  revolted  against  taxation ,  which  was  too  light 
to  be  felt  as  a  burden,  but  which  was  too  great  a  violation  of  principle  to  be 
borne  by  men  who  were  jealous  of  the  encroachments  of  power.  "  They 
snuffed  oppression  in  the  tainted  gale."  They  struck  for  freedom,  and  in 
the  mighty  struggle  which  ensued  they  had  the  sympathy  of  mankind.  The 


contest  undertaken  for  liberty,  ended  in  independence.  In  the  later  war 
with  that  power,  the  object  was  the  immunity  of  our  flag;  we  undertook  to 
maintain  that  doctrine  so  important  to  a  free  commercial  state,  that  those 
who  sailed  in  an  American  ship  should  look  to  the  flag  that  floated  over 
them  for  protection,  and  find  in  its  sanctity  security  against  arrest  by  any 
Power,  upon  any  sea  where  it  might  be  borne. 

What  is  the  object  of  the  present  war  ?  The  inviolability  of  our  soil ,  and 
redress  for  past  wrongs.  Whenever  Mexico  shall  be  disposed  to  yield 
these,  we  are  bound  to  accept  them.  Till  then,  we  ought  not  to  hesitate  a 
moment,  not  only  to  hold  what  we  have  obtained,  but  to  make,  if  necessary 
to  the  attainment  of  these*objects,  still  stronger  demonstrations.  Until  the 
objects  of  the  war  are  accomplished,  we  must  prosecute  these  objects.  But 
we  owe  it  to  ourselves,  more  even  than  to  Mexico,  to  take  care  that  these 
objects  are  not  lost  sight  of  in  the  heat  of  the  contest. 

I  trust  we  are  not  carrying  on  a  war  for  aggrandizement;  if  so,  we  should 
have  selected  some  other  adversary,  and  not  have  made  the  point  of  our 
lance  ring  against  the  shield  of  our  weakest  neighbor. 

Nor  is  it  a  war  for  the  acquisition  of  territory;  we  do  not  wish  to  strip  a 
feeble  state  of  her  possessions  because  we  are  stronger  than  she.  But  until 
Mexico  gives  some  unequivocal  sign  that  she  is  willing  to  grant  us  an  honor 
able  peace,  the  war  must  be  continued,  and  ought  to  be  prosecuted  with  the 
utmost  vigor.  I  would  not  be  understood  by  this  to  mean  that  T  favor  any 
particular  plan  for  conducting  the  war  ;  I  simply  desire  to  say,  that  such 
wise  and  energetic  measures  ought  to  be  adopted  as  will  save  us  from  the 
evils  of  a  protracted  conflict.  There  is  much  wisdom  in  the  advice  of  Polo- 
n ius  to  Laertes: 

"Beware  VL 

"  Of  entrance  to  a  quarrel :  but,  being  in, 
"  Bear  it,  that  the  opposer  may  beware  of  thee." 

If  from  the  heavy  cloud  which  overspread  Mexico  I  could  see  the  dove 
of  peace  coming  to  us,  bearing  but  a  single  olive  leaf  in  her  mouth,  I  would 
most  gladly  hail  her  approach.  But  in  the  absence  of  any  such  pacific 
sign,  I  hold  that  we  are  bound,  as  a  nation,  to  prosecute  the  war. 

We  ought  not  to  strike  with  a  view  to  dismember  the  possessions  of  a  weaker 
people,  but  our  operations  ought  to  be  characterized  by  unfaltering  energy,, 
and  by  such  a  putting  forth  of  strength  as  shall  teach  those  against  whom 
they  are  directed  that  it  is  their  interest  to  seek  a  speedy  peace.  I  would 
accept  the  first  sign  of  such  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  and  so  far 
from  degrading  or  crushing  her,  I  would  meet  her  with  the  most  generous 
terms.  They  should  be  marked  by  the  magnanimity  of  a  great  nation 
treating  with  a  weak  one. 

Through  this  war,  then ,  we  desire  to  reach  a  peace .  The  President  avows 
this  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  Government  in  carrying  it  on.  This  is  well. 
It  should  be  so  conducted  as  to  leave  no  room  for  doubt  upon  this  point.  It 
ought  not  to  appear,  that  while  we  profess  to  seek  to  tranquilize  our  frontier.,, 
to  fix  our  boundary  with  a  neighbor,  and  to  redress  acknowledged  wrongs r 
that  there  is  a  deeper  and  concealed  object.  Are  there  any  indications 
of  a  lust  of  dominion  in  this  war?  Are  there  any  features  in  the  events 
which  have  occurred  in  its  progress  which  may  be  misunderstood?  I  am 
not,  in  a  factious  spirit,  about  to  inquire  whether  the  President  has  trans 
cended  his  authority.  I  have  a  loftier  purpose.  It  is  comparatively  a  small 


question  how  the  Administration  has  used  the  power  entrusted  to  it,  except 
as  its  acts  affect  the  character  of  the  country. 

I  propose  to  inquire  whether  anything  has  occurred  which  exposes  us  to 
the  charge  of  entertaining  the  purpose  of  wresting  provinces  from  Mexico 
by  strength,  and  holding  them  as  permanent  acquisitions  against  her  con 
sent.  Any  early  instructions  which  look  to  this  object,  or  any  subsequent 
violations  of  the  law  of  nations  which  go  to  show  such  a  purpose  on  the  part 
of  the  Administration,  must  dishonor  our  national  character  and  impair  our 
strength.  If  this  be  the  object  of  the  war,  then  is  it  diverted  from  its  true 
and  legitimate  purpose.  For  the  time  being,  the  President  has  the  conduct 
of  the  war  under  his  charge.  The  question  is,  whether  the  instructions  he 
has  caused  to  be  given,  and  the  events  of  the  war,  disclose  or  not,  a  purpose 
of  conquest,  and  the  permanent  acquisition  of  territory? 

I  shall  speak  to  this  question  in  a  spirit  of  fairness,  not,  as  I  have  already 
said,  with  the  view  of  inquiring  whether  the  President  has  abused  his  func 
tions,  but  in  the  hope  of  doing  something  towards  arresting  a  tendency  in 
our  affairs  which,  if  it  is  permitted  to  go  on,  must  prove  alike  fatal  io  our 
national  character  and  to  our  free  institutions. 

Let  us  examine  the  instructions  which  those  who  were  sent  out  to  con 
duct  this  war  took  with  them.  I  find  among  the  papers  sent  to  us  by  the 
President,  in  answer  to  a  resolution  of  this  House,  moved  by  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  DAVIS,)  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of 
War,  addressed  to  General  Kearny,  under  date  of  June  3,  1846,  and 
marked  "  Confidential ,"  from  which  I  will  read  a  single  insignificant 
paragraph  : 

"  You  may  assure  the  people  of  those  provinces  that  it  is  the  wish  and  design  of  the  United 
States  to  provide  for  them  a  free  government  with  the  least  possible  delay,  similar  to  that  which 
exists  in  our  Territories.  They  will  then  be  called  on  to  exercise  the  rights  of  freemen  in  elect 
ing  their  own  representatives  to  the  Territorial  Legislature.  It  is  foreseen  that  what  relates  to 
the,civil  government  will  be  a  difficult  and  unpleasant  part  of  your  duty,  and  much  must  neces 
sarily  be  left  to  your  OWM  discretion." 

*,'    •  ~»      -   ••"  • 

How  was  this  discretion  employed?  In  declaring  that  the  conquered  pro 
vinces  were  annexed  to  the  United  States,  in  subverting  the  existing  civil 
governments,  and  in  devising  and  proclaiming  a  new,  large,  and  compli 
cated  syst'em  of  civil  government,  looking  evidently  to  the  permanent  in 
corporation  of  the  whole  territory  into  the  American  Confederacy.  He 
seemed  to  comprehend  the  full  scope  of  the  meaning  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  that  they  should  be  provided  with  "  a  free  government  with  the  least 
possible  delay;"  and  certainly  no  government  was  ever  organized  with 
greater  expedition  than  that  which  this  victorious  general  set  up  in  New 
Mexico.  Even  Ariel  doing  the  bidding  of  Prospero,  hardly  displayed  more 
swift  obedience. 

Not  only  was  this  free  government  provided  for  the  inhabitants  of  those 
remote  regions,  but  they  were  assured,  under  instructions  from  the  same 
high  quarter,  that  they  would  soon  "  be  called  on  to  exercise  the  rights  of 
freemen  in  electing  their  own  representatives  to  the  Territorial  Legislatures.*' 
It  is  impossible  to  overlook  these  things,  and  they  do  seem  to  disclose  the 
existence  of  a  scheme  for  the  conquest  and  the  permanent  acquisition  of  ter 
ritory  at  that  early  day. 

I  shall  now  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  instructions  from  the  Navy  Depart- 


ment,  and  the  operations  under  them.     The  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  in  a 
letter  dated  June  8,  1846 ;  and  addressed  to  Commodore  Sloat,  writes: 

"  In  like  manner,  if  California  separates  herself  from  our  enemy,  the  Central  Mexican  Go 
vernment,  and  establishes  a  government  of  its  own,  under  the  auspices  of  the  American  flag, 
you  will  take  such  measures  as  will  best  promote  the  attachment  of  the  people  of  California  to 
the  United  States,  will  advance  the  prosperity,  and  will  make  that  vast  region  a  desirable  place 
of  residence  for  emigrants  from  our  soil." 

How  evidently  the  permanent  occupation  of  that  vast  region,  by  emi 
grants  from  our  soil,  seems  to  be  contemplated.  This  idea  is  strengthened 
by  pursuing  the  instructions  given  at  a  subsequent  date,  July  12,1846, 
from  the  same  Secretary  to  the  same  officer: 

"  The  object  of  the  United  States  has  reference  to  ultimate  peace  with  Mexico  ;  and  if  at  that 
peace  the  basis  of  the  uti  possidetis  shall  be  established,  the  Government  expects,  through  your 
forces,  to  be  found  in  actual  possession  of  Upper  California." 

The  instructions  from  the  same  Department,  addressed  to  the  senior  offi 
cer  in  command  of  the  United  States  naval  forces  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  look 
to  the  same  result.  They  are  dated  August  13th,  and  begin  as  follows: 

"  COMMODORE  :  The  United  States  being  in  a  state  of  war  by  the  action  of  Mexico,  it  is  desired 
by  the  prosecution  of  hostilities  to  hasten  the  return  of  peace,  and  to  secure  it  on  advantageous 
conditions.  For  this  purpose,  orders  have  been  given  to  the  squadron  in  the  Pacific  to  take 
and  keep  possession  of  Upper  California,  especially  of  the  ports  of  San  Francisco,  of  Monte 
rey,  and  of  San  Diego ;  and  also,  if  opportunity  offer,  and  the  people  favor,  to  take  possession, 
by  an  inland  expedition,  of  Puebla  de  los  Angelos,  near  San  Diego. 

"  On  reaching  the  Pacific,  your  first  duty  will  be  to  ascertain  if  these  orders  have  been  carried 
into  effect.  If  not,  you  will  take  immediate  possession  of  Upper  California,  especially  of  the 
three  ports  of  San  Francisco,  Monterey,  and  San  Diego;  so  that,  if  the  treaty  of  peace  shall 
be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  uti  possidetii,  it  may  leave  California  to  the  United  States." 

Here  is  a  full  and  unequivocal  avowal  of  the  wish  of  the  Government  to 
have  the  operations  against  California  so  conducted,  that  when  a  treaty  of 
peace  is  made  with  Mexico,  if  the  basis  of  the  uti  possidetis  shall  be  est$b- 
lished,  we  may  be  left  in  possession  of  that  important  and  coveted  territory. 
That  this  basis  would  be  urged  by  our  Government  can  hardly  be  doubted, 
for  it.  would  leave  us  in  possession,  not  only  of  all  our  awn  territory,  but  of 
vast  acquisitions  from  Mexico.  Let  us  add  to  these  instructions  one  more 
paragraph,  hardly  less  significant  than  those  already  read,  from  a  letter  ad 
dressed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  Commodore  Stockton,  and  I  do 
not  see  how  any  one  can  resist  the  conclusion,  that,  from  the  very  com 
mencement  of  these  hostilities  with  Mexico,  the  permanent  acquisition  of  vast 
territorial  possessions  was  distinctly  in  the  view  of  the  Administration. 

"  You  will,  therefore,  under  no  circumstances,  voluntarily  lower  the  flag  of  the  United  States, 
or  relinquish  the  actual  possession  of  Upper  California.  Of  other  points  of  the  Mexican  terri 
tory,  which  the  forces  under  your  command  may  occupy,  you  will  maintain  the  possession  or 
withdraw,  as  in  your  judgment  may  be  most  advantageous  in  prosecution  of  the  war.' 

But  of  CALIFORNIA,  the  possession  was  not  to  be  given  up  under  any 
circumstances  whatever.  I  do  not  undertake  to  say,  whether  the  acquisition 
of  California,  or  any  other  of  the  Mexican  possessions,  is  desirable  or  not. 
I  am  inquiring  into  the  purpose,  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  to  hold 
these  provinces  as  permanent  conquests.  I  pass  over  the  extraordinary  pro 
clamations  published  to  the  inhabitants  of  California,  from  the  sea  and  from 
the  land;  the  one  professing  to  issue  from  the  " Commander-in-chief  of  the 
United  States  naval  force  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,"  and  the  other  dated  in  the 
City  of  Angels,  from  the  "  Commander-in-chief  and  Governor  of  the  Terri- 


toiy  of  California/'  and  am  willing  to  rest  the  case  upon  papers  emanating 
from  those  who  hold  a  confidential  relation  to  the  Executive. 

But,  sir,  whatever  are  to  be  the  results  of  the  war,  it  ought  not  to  be  car 
ried  on  so  as  to  violate  the  law  of  nations.  That  code  is  not  to  be  disre 
garded;  it  is  sacred ,  and  ought  to  be  solemnly  observed  by  us,  and  by  all 
other  nations. 

It  is  not  a  collection  of  abstract  essays  on  public  questions* of  right  and 
wrong.  This  is  a  law  which  is  never  silent;  it  speaks  in  the  midst  of  arms. 
It  is  as  diffusive  as  the  air  we  breaihe;  it  spreads  itself  by  a  sort  of  omnipre 
sence  over  land  and  sea.  Taking  its  rise  in  a  sense  of  right,  which  even  in 
early  times  was  powerful  enough  to  vindicate  itself,  it  has  gathered  new 
strength  with  the  advance  of  civilization,  and  it  is  attended  in  this  age  by 
sanctions  which  no  people  may  disregard.  Gustavus  Adolphus,  in  all  the 
wars  which  he  undertook  for  civil  and  religious  liberty,  carried  the  book 
of  Grotius  with  him  as  his  guide.  We  should  be  always  ready  to  do  this 
law  homage.  It  realizes  Hooker's  noble  description  of  law  in  general:  "Of 
law  there  can  be  no  less  acknowledged  than  that  her  seat  is  ihe  bosom  of 
God,  her  voice  the  harmony  of  the  world;  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth  do 
her  homage;  the  very  least  as  feeling  her  care,  and  the  greatest  as  not  ex 
empt  from  her  power."  JPMHTBOFT  iia*A 

Now,  what  is  the  language  of  this  law  in  regard  to  the  rights  which  result 
from  conquest?  Vattel,  who  has  been  referred  to  more  than  once  in  the 
course  of  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  on  this  subject,  says: 

"  The  conqueror  who  takes  a  town  or  province  from  his  enemy  cannot  justly  acquire  over  it 
any  other  rights  than  such  as  belonged  to  the  sovereign  against  whom  he  has  taken  up  arms. 
War  authorizes  him  to  possess  himself  of  what  belongs  to  his  enemy  ;  if  he  deprives  him  of 
the  sovereignty  of  that  town  or  province,  he  acquires  it,  such  as  it  is,  with  all  its  limitations 
and  modifications.  Accordingly,  care  is  usually  taken  to  stipulate,  both  in  particular  stipula 
tions  and  in  treaties  of  peace,  that  the  towns  and  countries  ceded  shall  retain  all  their  liberties, 
privileges,  and  immunities." 

This  is  the  extent  of  the  rights  which  the  conqueror  acquires  over  posses 
sions  which  the  opposing  sovereign  held  in  subjection  to  his  authority,  but 
•which  did  not  fully  belong  to  him;  and  it  is  the  same  right  which  a  suc 
cessful  invader  acquires  over  cities  or  provinces  which  he  overruns,  but 
which  are  not  regarded  as  permanent  acquisitions,  "to  be  thenceforward 
united  with  the  new  State." 

"  But  if  the  conqueror  thinks  proper  to  retain  the  sovereignty  of  the  conquered  State,  and  has 
a  right  to  retain  it,  the  same  principles  must  also  determine  the  manner  in  which  he  is  to  treat 
that  State.  If  it  is  against  the  sovereign  alone  that  he  has  just  cause  of  complaint,  reason 
plainly  evinces  that  he  acquires  no  other  rights  by  his  conquest  than  such  as  belonged  to  the 
sovereign  whom  he  has  dispossessed ;  and,  on  the  submission  of  the  people,  he  is  bound  to 
govern  them  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State.'1 

Now,  sir,  this  defines  precisely  the  extent  of  our  rights  over  those  Mexi 
can  States  which  are  occupied  by  our  armies.  We  have  expelled  the  sov 
ereignty  of  that  nation  from  those  territories,  and  we  have  acquired  it.  We 
hold  the  supreme  power  there,  and  the  people,  having  submitted  to  our 
arms,  are  "to  be  governed  according  to  the  laws  of  the  State." 

The  argument  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  BAYLY)  on 
this  subject  is  an  able  one;  but  he  misapplies  the  law,  which  he  very  cor 
rectly  lays  down.  He  says,  "We  acquire  the  rights  of  the  conquered  na 
tion,  whatever  they  are,"  and  quotes  from  Wheaton  in  support  of  his  pro 
position.  No  one  will  question  the  authority  or  the  law,  which  asserts, 


10 

that  "the  right  of  the  State  to  its  public  property  or  domain  is  absolute,  and 
excludes  that  of  its  own  subjects  as  well  as  other  nations,"  and  which  de 
fines  the  national  proprietary  right  in  respect  to  those  things  belonging  to 
private  individuals  or  bodies  corporate  within  its  territorial  limits,  as  abso 
lute ',  as  far  as  it  excludes  other  nations,  and  as  only  paramount  in  respect  to 
members  of  the  State.  The  other  doctrine,  too,  which  has  been  laid  down, 
that  of  the  teuti possidetis"  will  be  as  little  questioned: 

"  The  existing  state  of  possession  is  maintained,  except  so  far  as  altered  by  the  terms  of  treaty. 
If  nothing  be  said  about  the  conquered  countries  or  places,  they  remain  with  the  conqueror,  and 
his  title  cannot  afterwards  be  called  in  question." 

But,  sir,  this  law  applies  to  the  rights  acquired  by  the  conqueror  over  the 
property  found  in  the  conquered  territory,  whether  public  or  private,  and 
determines  the  results  which  would  follow  the  conclusion  of  a  treaty  of 
peace  under  a  certain  state  of  facts.  It  does  not  touch  the  question  of  poli 
tical  rights,  immunities,  and  privileges.  The  question  is,  when  the  con 
quered  sovereignty  gives  back  before  the  advancing  conqueror,  and  retires 
from  the  territory  in  dispute,  to  what  does  the  conqueror  succeed?  To  the 
rights  of  the  conquered  sovereign;  that  is,  to  the  right  of  administering  the 
government  of  the  conquered  territory  while  he  holds  it.  But  is  the  civil 
government  to  be  subverted,  and  all  existing  internal  laws  to  be  displaced, 
and  principles  and  forms  which  the  conqueror  may  happen  to  think  good  to 
be  imposed  arbitrarily  upon  the  inhabitants  of  provinces  temporarily  subjec 
ted  to  his  power? 

This  is  the  point  to  be  regarded;  for,  I  repeat,  the  question  as  to  property 
does  not  come  up  here;  it  is  a  question  of  political  right,  a  question  of  far 
higher  interest  and  importance. 

When  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  comes  to  speak  of  our  duties  in  re 
spect  to  the  country  now  held  by  military  occupation ,  he  insists  that  "we 
are  required  to  establish  temporary  civil  governments,  or  rather '  quasi  '  civil 
governments — civil  in  their  form  and  rules  of  proceeding,  and  military  in 
their  origin ;  established  to  protect  the  rights  of  persons  and  property  of  the 
vanquished  during  the  military  occupancy  of  the  country.  The  right,  nay, 
the  duty ,  to  establish  such  governments,  involves  the  right  to  determine  upon 
its  form.  What  it  shall  be  is  purely  a  matter  of  expediency  and  conveni 
ence.  Upon  principle,  it  would  seem  that  it  ought  to  be  assimilated  as  near 
as  possible  to  the  forms  of  the  conquering  nation.  As  in  all  wars  by  land 
the  acquisition  of  territory  is  looked  to  as  probable,  the  sooner  the  people 
are  introduced  to  the  form  of  government  under  which  they  are  in  future  to 
live  the  better.  And  the  vanquished  have  no  right  to  complain,  but  rather 
to  be  grateful  when  the  form  adopted  is  not  worse  than  the  one  superseded. 
And  even  when  it  is  worse,  they  must  submit  to  it  as  the  fortune  of  war." 

I  must  dissent  from  all  this.  I  cannot  admit  that  these  principles  apply  to 
our  rights  over  the  Mexican  territory  now  held  by  our  arms.  They  apply 
to  complete  conquests  and  permanent  acquisitions,  not  to  such  as  are  held 
in  temporary  possession  merely. 

Vattel,  in  laying  down  the  doctrine,  expressly  refers  to  a  conquered  town 
or  province  which  has  passed  "into  the  power  of  the  conqueror.  Thence 
forward  united  with  the  new  State  to  which  it  belongs;  if  it  be  a  loser  by  the 
change,  that  is  a  misfortune  which  it  must  wholly  impute  to  the  chance  of 
war."  When  does  the  right  thus  to  treat  the  conquered  territory  arise? 
When;  in  the  language  of  the  same  writer,  "by  the  treaty  of  peace,  or  the 


11 

entire  submission  and  extinction  of  the  State  to  which  those  towns  and  pro 
vinces  belonged ,  the  acquisition  is  completed ,  and  the  property  becomes  sta 
ble  and  perfect." 

I  readily  admit ,  that  if  a  conquered  possession  is  to  be  permanently  held 
and  incorporated  with  the  territory  of  the  conquering  nation  as  its  own ,  the 
conqueror  has  a  right  to  extend  his  own  laws  over  it  absolutely;  but  not 
when  the  tenure  is  temporary  only.  In  that  case  the  country  must  be  gov 
erned  by  the  subsisting  laws.  Those  who  so  hold  it  are  not  to  expel  the 
system  of  laws  which  existed  there  before  it  came  into  their  possession.  A 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  HOLMES)  promptly  put  this  matter  in 
its  true  light;  and  another  gentleman  from  the  same  State,  (Mr.  WOOD 
WARD,)  has  clearly  and  forcibly  exhibited  the  law  of  nations  upon  the  subject. 

It  may  well  be  remarked  here,  too,  that  it  is  not  for  the  conquering  general 
to  say  what  shall  be  the  form  of  government  of  the  country  which  he  has 
seized.  He  is  bound  to  maintain  his  military  occupation  of  it;  but  he  can 
do  no  more.  Nor  can  the  President  provide  a  civil  government  for  it,  for 
he  merely  holds  the  supreme  command  of  the  forces;  it  is  for  this  Govern 
ment,  acting  through  its  several  departments,  to  establish  laws  over  it. 

These  principles  are  not  contradicted  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Rice,  which  has  been  referred  to. 
The  question  involved  there  was  one  of  property,  as  affected  by  a  change 
of  sovereignty ,  not  a  question  of  civil  liberty,  or  of  political  rights.  The 
facts  were  these:  Goods  were  imported  into  Castine  in  September,  1814, 
during  its  occupation  by  the  er.emy,  and  remained  there  until  its  evacua 
tion.  Upon  the  re-establishment  of  the  American  Government,  were  they 
subject  to  duties  imposed  by  our  revenue  laws  ?  The  Supreme  Court  de 
clared  they  were  not — upon  the  principle  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  over  the  territory  in  possession  of  the  British  troops  was  suspended, 
and  the  inhabitants  passed  under  a  temporary  allegiance  to  the  British  Gov 
ernment,  and  were  under  such  laws  as  they  chose  to  recognise  and  enforce. 

The  proclamation  of  Gen.  Harrison  has  been  referred  to,  but  there  is  a 
broad  contrast  between  that  document  and  the  proclamation  of  General 
Kearny.  I  feel  a  profound  interest  in  the  memory  of  Harrison;  it  is  con 
secrated  by  good  deeds,  and  has  received  the  seal  of  death.  A  long  life, 
marked  at  every  step  by  purity  in  his  personal  relations,  and  by  his  respect 
for  public  law,  was  closed  in  the  midst  of  the  gratulations  which  greeted 
him  from  ail  parts  of  this  great  Republic,  on  the  occasion  of  the  most  as 
tonishing  political  victory  which  the  annals  of  this  country  can  show. 

In  referring  to  his  proclamation,  dated  17th  October,  1812,  we  find  no 
subversion  of  subsisting  laws;  no  appointment  of  judges,  attorney  general, 
sheriffs,  and  a  hundred  other  officers;  no  new  and  complex  system  of  laws 
instituted.  True,  the  commissions  of  all  magistrates  were  suspended,  but 
their  authority  was  still  continued  under  that  of  the  United  States.  In 
taking  possession  of  Upper  Canada,  he  said  to  the  inhabitants: 

"The  district  is  now  in  the  quiet  possession  of  our  troops;  it  becomes  necessary  to  provide 
for  its  government;  therefore  we  hereby  proclaim  and  make  known,  that  the  rights  and  privi 
leges  of  the  inhabitants,  and  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  country,  as  they  existed,  or  were  in 
force  at  the  period  of  our  arrival,  shall  continue  to  prevail." 

Had  a  course  like  this  been  pursued,  we  should  have  been  spared  the 
present  controversy.  The  spectacle  would  not  have  been  presented  to  the 


12 

world  of  our  indecent  haste  to  provide  new  forms  of  government  the  mo 
ment  we  had  obtained  possession  of  one  of  the  provinces  of  our  enemy. 

I  have  thus,  sir,  endeavored  to  present  the  real  question,  which  is  not 
whether  a  milder  or  harsher  form  of  government  has  been  introduced  by 
our  army  into  the  Mexican  States  which  we  hold  in  subjection,  but  whether 
the  occupied  provinces  are  regarded  and  treated  as  permanent  conquests 
already  annexed  to  this  country.  It  is  not.  my  object  to  cast  any  censure 
either  on  the  President  or  his  officers,  but  the  instructions  to  which  I  have 
referred,  and  the  disregard  of  obvious  principles  of  international  law,  seem 
to  disclose  the  purpose  of  making  this  a  war  of  conquest.  Indeed,  some 
gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  friends  too  of  the  President,  do  not  hesitate  to  avow 
that  it  is  such.  Among  other  significant  declarations  on  this  subject,  a  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  GORDON)  informed  us  some  days  since,  that 
they  intended  uto  keep  what  we  have."  Against  this  rising  lust  of  domin 
ion,  we  ought  at  once  to  take  a  position  and  set  up  a  standard.  If  it  should 
spread  and  gather  strength,  it  will  prove  fatal  to  our  free  institutions.  Our 
very  successes  will  ruin  us.  Cicero  attributes  the  decline  and  fall  of  the 
Roman  empire  to  the  oblivion  of  the  great  principles  which  they  had  recog 
nised  in  their  earlier  days  and  humbler  fortunes.  In  the  early  extension  of  her 
powder,  she  became,  in  his  language,  "  the  patroness,  rather  than  the  mis 
tress  of  the  world."  All  this  passed  away  with  the  triumphs  of  Sylla.  Our 
Government  is  one  of  consent;  it  rests  so  lightly  upon  its  citizens  that  its 
weight  is  not  felt.  If  we  should  become  engaged  in  wars  for  the  extension 
of  our  sway,  overrunning  neighboring  States, and  bringing  into  our  confed 
eracy  a  reluctant  people,  the  whole  character  of  our  political  system  will 
be  changed — it  will  be  converted  into  a  colossal  despotism,  and  we  shall 
furnish  another  grand  and  instructive,  but  unhappy,  instance  of  the  failure 
of  institutions  intended  to  provide  for  the  protection  of  human  liberty. 

"  Such  is  the  moral  of  all  earthly  tales  ; 

'Tis  but  the  same  rehearsal  of  the  past, 

l.>  First  freedom  and  then  glory ;  v/hen  that  fails, 

Corruption,  slavery,  barbarism  at  last ; 
And  history,  with  all  her  volumes  vast, 
Hath  but  one  page." 

I  am  not  averse  to  the  extension  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  nor 
tlo  I  feel  on  that  subject  the  apprehensions  which  haunt  the  minds  of  some 
gentlemen.  Such  is  the  elasticity  of  our  federal  system  of  government, 
that  it  may  be  extended  over  any  space,  great  or  small.  It  resembles  the 
fabled  tent  in  the  Arabian  Nights,  which  could  cover  with  its  folds  few  or 
many.  Steam  and  the  magnetic  telegraph  overcome  space,  and  bring  to 
gether  remote  parts;  but  if  territory  is  to  be  acquired,  let  it  be  in  a  legitimate 
way,  by  purchase,  or  by  the  coming  in  of  a  neighboring  people  who  have  attain 
ed  a  high  degree  of  civilization .  If  our  institutions  are  to  extend  themselves ,  let 
it  be  by  their  own  inherent  and  peaceful  power,  not  by  the  aggressive  force 
of  arms.  Our  national  character,  and  the  purity  of  our  political  system, 
are  of  far  more  consequence  to  us  than  any  amount  of  territory  which  we 
can  acquire. 

There  are  other  topics  to  which  I  must  now  turn.  The  gentleman  from 
the  State  of  New  York,  to  whom  I  have  already  referred,  (Mr.  GORDON,) 
informed  the  House  that  c<the  people  of  the  United  States  meant  to  hold 
-on  to  California;  they  meant  to  conquer  it,  and  hold  it,  and  make  it  a  per- 


13 

manent  acquisition.  That  was  what  they  meant  to  do  with  it.  The  Pre 
sident  neither  meant  to  do,  nor  had  he  the  power  to  do,  anything  as  to  the 
disposition  of  our  conquests.  Gentlemen  might  be  very  easy;  in  due  time 
the  American  people  would  take  proper  care  both  erf  California  and  New 
Mexico.  Of  one  thing  they  might  be  assured,  those  provinces  never  would 
return  to  Mexico  again."  This  is  explicit  enough,  and  we  ought  to  feel 
under  obligations  to  the  honorable  gentleman,  who  is  a  member  of  the 
party  now  in  power,  for  an  avowal  so  frank  and  unequivocal.  Not  con 
tent,  however,  with  enlightening  us  as  to  the  objects  of  the  war,  he  proceeds 
to  inform  us  upon  "  another  subject,  and  one  of  no  trifling  moment.  The 
people  of  the  United  States — a  vast  majority  of  them  at  least — were  not 
only  for  the  war,  and  for  retaining  this  conquered  territory  as  an  indemnity 
for  the  robberies  and  spoliations  of  Mexico,  but  they  meant  to  make  it  a 

FREE  TERRITORY." 

Such,  then .  is  a  bold  declaration  of  the  purpose  to  hold  New  Mexico  and 
California  as  permanent  acquisitions,  to  be  incoiporated  with  this  Confede 
racy,  and  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  whole  territory. 

In  the  same  spirit  another  gentleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  PRESTON 
KING)  brought  forward  yesterday  morning  a  measure  which  looked  to  the 
acquisition  of  territory  from  Mexico,  and  which  provided  for  the  total  ex 
clusion  of  slavery  from  it;  and  to-day,  taking  advantage  of  the  permission 
which  the  House  granted  him  to  make  a  personal  explanation ,  he  has  spoken 
at  length  upon  this  subject,  insisting  upon  the  permanent  annexation  of 
new  territory,  to  be  hereafter  converted  into  FREE  STATES. 

I  regret  the  introduction  of  this  subject.  It  is  impossible  to  overlook  the 
danger  which  it  brings  with  it.  Gentlemen  belonging  to  the  party  in  power 
insist,  that  this  war  shall  be  converted  into  a  war  of  conquest  ;  that  large 
and  important  States,  stretching  through  several  parallels  of  latitude,  shall 
be  torn  from  Mexico,  and  incorporated  into  our  Confederacy;  that  peace 
shall  be  made  upon  no  other  terms,  no  matter  how  ample  the  remuneration 
tendered  for  past  wrongs  may  be  ;  and  that  the  territory  thus  acquired  shall 
be  made  to  increase  the  preponderance  of  one  section  of  the  Union,  by 
legislating  here  in  advance  as  to  the  character  of  the  population  which  shall 
overspread  it. 

I  take  now  the  ground  which  I  took  before  on  the  Oregon  question. 
We  have  no  right  to  say  to  the  Executive  department  of  the  Government 
what  shall  be  done  in  settling  the  terms  of  a  treaty;  and  I  therefore  consider 
it  highly  improper  to  introduce  such  projects  here  as  have  been  referred  to. 

The  attempt  to  fix  in  advance,  by  a  vote  of  this  House,  the  terms  of  a 
treaty  hereafter  to  be  concluded  with  Mexico,  is  a  solemn  interference  with 
the  province  and  duties  of  another  department  of  this  Government.  That 
duty  belongs  to  the  treaty-making  power,  which,  by  the  Constitution,  is 
vested  in  the  President  and  the  Senate.  It  is  for  this  House  to  discuss 
questions  of  a  very  different  character.  Each  department  of  the  Govern 
ment  should  be  left  to  the  undisturbed  exercise  of  its  own  functions.  It,  is 
as  unwise  as  it  is  unbecoming  in  us  to  leave  the  sphere  of  our  legislative 
duties  ;  we  shall  find  full  employment  in  a  faithful  attention  to  them,  in 
the  present  state  of  our  national  affairs,  without  yielding  to  the  promptings 
of  a  discursive  philanthropy,  which  can  only  injure  where  it  seeks  to  guide. 
If  this  scheme  of  acquiring  territory  is  persisted  in,  and  the  power  of  this 
Government  is  to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  it  so  as  to  exclude  slavery  from 


14 

every  part  of  it,  it  must  be  seen  by  all  who  have  bestowed  any  reflection 
upon  the  history  of  the  organization  and  progress  of  our  political  system, 
that  the  most  serious,  1  may  say  disastrous,  results  will  follow.  This  Union 
can  only  stand  on  those  compromises  which  I  regard  in  their  sacred  obliga 
tion  as  second  only  to  the  Constitution.  The  compromise  which  has  al 
ready  taken  place  on  the  Missouri  question,  was  sufficiently  disadvantageous 
to  the  South.  The  South  does  not  interfere  in  the  concerns  of  the  North. 
A  lofty  feeling  of  brotherhood  for  the  people  of  this  whole  country  is  che 
rished  there.  I,  for  one,  rejoice  in  the  splendid  achievements  and  unpre 
cedented  success  of  the  industry  and  enterprise  of  New  England,  as  much 
as  any  man.  I  turn  with  pride  to  her  Revolutionary  history.  I  admire 
the  genius  which  she  sends  to  our  national  councils.  I  survey  with  plea 
sure  the  vast  resources  and  rapid  growth  of  this  whole  country.  Why  is  it, 
then,  that  no  opportunity  is  lost  to  proscribe  the  South ,  to  subject  our  internal 
policy  to  censure,  and  to  direct  against  our  institutions  the  sentiment  of 
mankind,  both  at  home  and  abroad?  Gentlemen  have  transcended  the 
rules  which  should  govern  them  here  ;  if  they  proceed,  they  will  rend  the 
bonds  of  this  Union  as  Samson  burst  the  withes  that  bound  him. 

Is  this  the  doctrine  to  be  acted  on,  that  territory  must  be  acquired,  and, 
wherever  acquired,  free  labor  may  be  suffered  to  go  there,  but  the  men 
of  the  South  must  not  take  their  slaves  with  them  there? 

When  this  great  question  was  agitated  in  1820,  a  northern  man,  Mr. 
Holmes,  of  Maine,  said,  that  to  regulate  slavery  was  the  attribute  of  sover 
eign  power.  He  used  this  language  : 

sh  or  pro- 
lew  York 

has  told  us  that  a  slave  representation  beyond  the  original  States  is  unequal,  and  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  compact.  I  know  not  where  the  gentleman  derived  his  authority,  surely  not  from 
the  Constitution.  It  is  there  argued  that  the  representation  shall  be  apportioned  according  to 
the  number  of  free  persons  and  three-fifths  of  the  slaves,  not  in  such  States  as  then  existed,  but 
*  in  such  as  may  be  included  within  the  Union.'  This  language  is  explicit  and  positive." 

Mr.  Macon,  of  North  Carolina,  took  part  in.  the  same  debate — that  which 
grew  out  of  the  Missouri  question.  That  good  and  great  man,  at  once  calm 
and  wise,  was  distinguished  for  a  patriotism  which  was  comprehensive  enough 
to  embrace  his  whole  country.  He  said: 

"  The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire  has  said  that  the  Constitution  was  a  compromise  as  to 
slaves.  This  is  no  doubt  true  ;  but  not  a  compromise  to  emancipate.  The  States  that  held 
them  could  free  them,  as  others  had  done,  without  asking  or  consulting  the  convention  or  Con 
gress.  But  it  was  a  compromise  as  to  representation,  and  nothing  else." 

This  is  the  language  of  truth  and  justice.  But  we  are  told  now  that 
the  North  will  hold  the  conquered  Mexican  provinces;  but  that  neither  I, 
nor  any  southern  man,  nor  our  children,  nor  our  children's  children,  shall 
set  a  foot  within  them,  unless  we  consent  to  abandon  our  property?  This 
is  not  a  place  to  discuss  the  question  of  slavery.  It  is  a  subject  that  should 
never  be  named  in  this  Hall.  It  is  an  institution  which  belongs  to  the 
southern  States,  and  gentlemen  do  those  States  great  wrong  to  press  them  or 
that  subject  here. 

The  Missouri  compromise  did  them  much  injustice.  Suppose  the  South 
should  select  a  particular  institution  existing  in  the  northern  States,  or  a 
particular  feature  in  northern  society — the  labor  of  operatives  in  factories  for 


"  To  regulate  the  relation  between  different  members  of  a  community,  or  to  estabjkl 
hibit  slavery,  is  an  attribute  of  sovereign  power.     *    *    *     *    The  gentleman  from  N< 


15 

instance — and  undertake  to  denounce  it  and  overthrow  it,  how  would  it  be 
regarded  ?  What  would  they  think  and  say  of  such  a  proceeding  ?  Why, 
then,  is  this  course  pursued  towards  the  South  ? 

The  slave  population  must  have  a  representation  somewhere.  By  the 
compromise  of  the  Constitution ,  the  slave  States  are  deprived  of  a  portion  of 
their  political  importance.  What,  then,  is  to  be  gained  by  limiting  slavery 
to  the  precise  extent  which  it  now  occupies?  Will  it  ameliorate  the  con 
dition  of  the  slave  ?  Would  their  introdution  into  new  territory  increase  their 
number?  The  object  is  clearly  a  political  one,  thinly  disguised  by  an  as 
sumed  philanthropy.  Suppose  you  could  even  succeed  by  keeping  the 
slavery  within  its  present  limits,  in  bringing  about  its  abolition,  would  not 
the  political  importance  of  these  people  be  increased,  by  rising  from  a  ttirce- 
fifth  to  a  full  representation? 

If  there  are  other  States  to  be  formed  at  our  side,  under  the  same  burn 
ing  sun,  and  covering  the  same  fertile  plains,  will  they  not  have  common 
interests,  and  ought  they  not  to  have  common  institutions  and  common 
sympathies?  Why  is  every  occasion  seized  on  to  bring  this  unprofitable 
and  dangerous  question  into  the  field  of  controversy?  I  ask,  in  the  name 
of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  men  who  formed  our  institutions  as  they  ex 
ist,  that  this  subject  shall  not  be  made  here  a  theme  for  angry  disputation. 
Let  not  gentlemen  disturb  the  regular  course  of  business  in  this  body,  by 
rising  in  their  places,  and  meeting  us  with  projects  and  speeches  such  as  those 
to  which  we  have  listened.  If  this  is  to  be  done,  this  Government  will  be 
come  unequal,  and  its  days  will  be  numbered.  The  spirit  still  lingers  in 
the  South  which  produced  our  Revolution — a  spirit  which  will  contend  for 
political  rights  to  the  very  last.  The  people  of  those  States  love  this  Union; 
they  glory  in  the  past,  and  hope  for  the  future.  They  will  cling  to  the 
pillars  of  the  CONSTITUTION  as  long  as  they  can;  they  will  listen  to  the  part 
ing  words  of  WASHINGTON,  still  vibrating  in  their  ears,  as  long  as  endurance 
is  possible;  but,  when  they  find  that  they  are  to  be  downtrodden ,  they  will  be 
constrained,  though  it  be  with  deep  grief,  to  give  up  an  alliance  which  is  to 
be  marked  only  by  wrongs  and  oppressions,  and  gather  about  their  homes 
and  their  property. 

Sir,  I  trust  that  hour  will  never  come.  The  spirit  which  has  this  day 
been  manifested  by  the  member  from  New  York  ought  to  be  rebuked,  and 
the  blame  for  the  introduction  of  this  subject  ought  not  to  be  thrown  from 
him  upon  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  (Mr.  GENTRY,)  who  spoke  of  it 
only  because  he  had  the  sagacity  to  see  the  question  coming.  It  is  time  to 
meet  it.  If  it  is  provided  that  the  States  on  this  side  the  Mississippi  shall 
be  equally  balanced  in  respect  to  slavery,  why  should  not  the  same  balance 
be  permitted  to  exist  on  the  other  side  ? 

As  to  the  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory,  it  is  a  question  which  belongs 
to  the  treaty-making  power.  We  should  not  now  discuss  it.  But,  as  it  has 
been  thrust  upon  our  attention,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty,  as  a  southern  man, 
to  express  my  own  views.  If  territory  is  to  be  acquired,  let  it  be  subjected 
to  compromises  which  have  been  already  formed.  I  do  not  wish  for  any 
violation  of  the  Missouri  compromise.  Let  it  stand,  in  letter  and  spirit.  Let 
the  line  upon  which  it  runs  be  extended  to  the  Pacific  ocean. 

I  hope  to  see  that  worst  of  all  party  spirit,  the  spirit  of  geographical  party, 
forever  banished  from  this  Hall.  If  kept  alive  here,  it  will  lead  to  the 
fiercest  collision  which  has  ever  been  witnessed  in  this  country. 


16 

When  it  becomes  dominant,  apd  the  rights  of  the  North  are  exalted  above 
those  of  the  South,  when  fraternal  affection  is  lost  in  a  struggle  for  party  as 
cendancy,  when  patriotism  dwindles  down  into  a  narrow  regard  for  a  mere 
section  of  our  country,  then  will  this  Government,  erected  by  our  fathers  for 
the  protection  of  human  liberty,  and  which  has  awakened  throughout  the 
world  the  noblest  hopes,, totter  to  its  fall. 


